[Event "Hastings 1966/67"]
[Site "Hastings ENG"]
[Date "1966.12.30"]
[EventDate "1966.12.28"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Raymond Keene"]
[Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"]
[ECO "A04"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "69"]

1. Nf3 { Notes by Raymond Keene. I appeared for this game
wearing a dinner-jacket and black elasticated bow tie,
determined to perish in style. Photographs taken during the
game later revealed that after Botvinnik's 26th move the
elastic snapped, leaving my bow tie dangling at an absurd
angle, a fact of which I was oblivious during the game. }
1...g6 2. c4 Bg7 {This method of opening had become
increasingly popular with Botvinnik in the latter years of his
active playing career.} 3. d4 Nf6 {Opting to transpose into
the King's Indian Defence rather than continue along the lines
of the Kotov-Robatsch with ...d7-d6 and ...Nc6.} 4. g3 O-O
5. Bg2 c6 6. O-O d6 {6...d5 is an excellent equalising
alternative, but naturally my opponent was intent on achieving
more than equality.} 7. Nc3 a6 {A refreshing change from the
well-known 7...Nbd7, followed by 8...e5.} 8. a4 {? Botvinnik
accused this move of being stereotyped, and rightly
so. Petrosian had followed a similar plan in the final game of
his 1966 World Championship match with Spassky, but there his
king's knight was on e2 and his king's pawn on e3, and the
weakness of the b4 square was adequately compensated by
increased central control: 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 g3 Bg7 4 Bg2 O-O
5 Nc3 d6 6 e3 Nbd7 7 Nge2 a6 8 b3 Rb8 9 a4 a5 10 Ba3 c6 11 O-O
Qc7 12 Qd2 Re8 13 Rac1 Ra8 14 Rfd1 Nb8 15 h3 Na6 16 Kh2 h5
(1/2-1/2, 77). In the present case White's best course is the
aggressive 8 d5!} 8...a5 {! Both preventing the constricting
a4-a5 and exploiting White's ěholeî on b4.} 9. b3 Na6 10. Ba3
Nb4 11. e4 {The natural 11 Na2 Qb6 12 Nxb4 axb4 13 Bb2 has
drawbacks after 13...Ne4, but a safer course might have been
11 Ne1, followed by e2-e3, Nc2 or Nd3.} 11...Bg4 {! In the
following closed manoeuvring struggle knights will be more
useful than bishops.} 12. Qd2 Bxf3 {! The knight must be
eliminated before it can reach e1. Botvinnik plays with great
accuracy and energy.} 13. Bxf3 Nd7 {Initiating pressure
against the central dark squares with the intention of forcing
White to play d5, which will impede the scope of his king's
bishop and provide a target for the flanking blow ...f7-f5.}
14. Rab1 {White prepares to bolster up his d-pawn in attempt
to avoid playing d4-d5.} 14...Qb6 {It is interesting to note
how Botvinnik gradually intensifies his central pressure
without actually having recourse to moving his central pawns.}
15. Rfd1 Rad8 {! Naturally not 15...Bxd4?? 16 Qxd4 Qxd4 17
Rxd4 Nc2 18 Rd2! Nxa3 19 Ra1 and Black will lose a piece.}
16. Ne2 e5 17. Bg2 Rfe8 {The pressure has now reached such a
pitch that White can no longer hold out in the centre, but
must declare his intentions. Nevertheless, a good alternative
would have been 17...exd4 18 Nxd4 Nc5.} 18. d5 {This possesses
the virtue of disarming the immediate effect of the black
rooks.} 18...Nc5 19. Nc1 Rf8 {Discreet but powerful. Note that
Black has the initiative on both sides of the board and that
his pieces are all indirectly aiming at White's main weakness,
the f2 square.} 20. Bb2 cxd5 {If Black plays the immediate
20...f5 then 21 dxc6! bxc6 22 exf5 allows White's two bishops
some scope to compensate for Black's immense pawn centre. As
played White's pawn remains on d5 to muffle his king's
bishop.} 21. cxd5 f5 22. exf5 gxf5 23. Re1 Rc8 {Seizing
another open line and threatening to penetrate at c2.} 24. Bc3
{! Parrying the immediate danger on the c-file and threatening
25 Bxb4 followed by Na2, when White would have overcome all
his problems.} 24...Ne4 {Black is obliged to strike at once
before the above-mentioned threat can be carried out.}
25. Bxe4 fxe4 26. Bxb4 {Up to now Botvinnik's play has been a
seemingly classic blend of constant tactical awareness and
profound strategic thought. However, now he must have become
concerned about the simple 26...axb4, since the weakness of
his two sets of doubled pawns is, surprisingly, not offset by
the increased activity of his pieces; e.g. 27 Rb2 Qd4 28 Na2
Bh6! 29 Qxd4 exd4 30 Rxe4 d3 31 f4 Bg7 32 Rd2 Rc2 33 Rxc2 dxc2
34 Rxb4 Rc8 35 Rxb7 c1/Q+ 36 Nxc1 Rxc1+ 37 Kg2 +/- Hitherto
Botvinnik had been playing quickly and confidently, but from
now on his play decelerated considerably and he began to look
more and more unsettled. Although Black has been pressing,
White has managed to hold the lines, and Black's next is
really only a fancy way of forcing a draw.} 26...Bh6 27. Qxh6
{!} Qxf2+ 28. Kh1 Qf3+ 29. Kg1 Qf2+ 30. Kh1 Rc2 31. Qh3
{Botvinnik himself pointed out a second satisfactory
continuation for White: 31 Qe6+ Kh8 32 Ne2 Rxe2 33 Rxe2 Qxe2
and now 34 h3!} 31...Qf3+ 32. Kg1 axb4 33. Ne2 Qe3+ {?
Complicating the issue. Black should either give perpetual
check himself with ...Qf2+ etc., or regain his piece with
33...Rxe2 34 Rxe2 Qxe2 35 Qe6+ Kh8 36 Qxd6 when we have a
position similar to that given in the last note which is
perfectly happy for White.} 34. Kh1 34...Rxe2 {?? A fantastic
blunder, possibly caused by a combination of mental exhaustion
and disappointment. Black still has one possibility of saving
the game after his mistake on move 33. He should have played
34...Rf2! (not 34...Qf3+? 35 Qg2!) when according to Botvinnik
White must continue with 35 Qe6+, followed by perpetual check,
since the presence of three black major pieces in his position
prevents White from any positive winning attempt.} 35. Qg4+
{At which point Botvinnik gasped, raised his hand to his
forehead, and resigned. } 1-0